H&K M27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
1,286
Location
Douglas County, Colorado
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-heckler-koch-m27-the-marines-new-rifle-24019

Think CMP will be selling these in 100 years?
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Did you know it has been documented that U.S. infantrymen rarely use automatic capability(if available) in modern combat?


I think weapon accuracy and sighting aids have gotten to the point that burst or full auto is really not needed unless we're talking about a SAW used for suppressive fire.

A lot of the videos I've seen of soldiers in battle makes it seem like any engagements are rather drawn out and shot placement is more important. They carry up to what? 6? 30 round magazines on a full load out? That would go by quick with 3 round burst.
 
Full auto is much more appropriate for submachine guns than rifles. I think it would be much more useful in that application.
I don't see a use for it in rifles either.
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Look for the Current M16s to get sold off first. If the President sees another 7 years we may be able to buy rifles with 3 shot bursts by then.


Very doubtful. We cannot even get national reciprocity and the SHUSH act passed (Supressors)
 
OP: No unless they are more demilitarized.

3 shot bursts are out and have been for some time. M4's for combat arms are full auto.

Last time I worked with Marines, they already had a couple M27's in their TAC squad.

Honestly the 416, is a little more reliable, but not really not worth it for some larger services to switch. Marines trying to be different
smile.gif
.

Semi, good most of the time, but CQB SA/DA auto all the way.
 
If I remember correctly, the whole reason for the military move to the H&K line of AR-15 / M-16 platform weapons, was because the SEALS wanted the ability of the H&K to be able to immediately fire after complete submersion in water. Something the SEALS do with their weapons on a regular basis. Standard D.I. driven M-16's explode if they are fired with water in the gas tube. (There are videos of H&K testing the 416 in this regard against D.I. M-16 weapons).

For civilians this gun is much like everything else that comes from the Elve's in the Black Forest.... Overpriced to the Moon. The best price I've seen on a semi auto civilian 416, (MR-556 A-5), was in the neighborhood of $3,000.00 out the door. That is completely insane for a gun that won't do anything better than a $450.00 AR-15, except get into action faster after you emerge from your swimming pool with it. I'm not knocking H&K's products. They build good weapons. But their prices, coupled with their lousy, "go screw yourself", customer attitude, doesn't make me jump up and down to give them my hard earned money.
 
Just a guess, but I think maybe a little more range (longer barrel)over the M4, and the perceived ability for better reliability in a sustained firefight might have played into this, also.
Marines like riflemen.
There was one large firefight in Afghanistan where weapons reliability was questioned. It was later "semi" determined that may not have been the issue(possibly operator error), but...

Mr. Timo probably hit the nail on the head
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Here is the part I'm having trouble with:

"An M27 reportedly costs around $3,000. “The price for that rifle is comparable to what we paid for the M4s the riflemen currently have,” Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian P. Wade, 2nd Marine Division Gunner, told Military.com.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-heckler-koch-m27-the-marines-new-rifle-24019

If the military is actually paying $3K for a standard D.I. M-4 Carbine, no wonder they're in such bad shape financially.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
That is completely insane for a gun that won't do anything better than a $450.00 AR-15, except get into action faster after you emerge from your swimming pool with it.

OK, that got a laugh out of me.
laugh.gif
 
Can someone please educate me in a sentence or two?

What can the M27 do (beyond the gas tube vs. piston design) that the M4 and M16 can't do, and vice versa? Or is it just more of an improved refresh of the current weapons because all the M4s and M16s are at their end of life and their shortcomings are well known at this point?
 
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Can someone please educate me in a sentence or two? What can the M27 do (beyond the gas tube vs. piston design) that the M4 and M16 can't do, and vice versa?


1.) Run cooler with a suppressor. 2.) Can be fired immediately after submersion without the danger of damage. 3.) Stay cleaner longer because of it's gas piston design. (Especially the Bolt Carrier Group and chamber area).
 
Free floated barrel, so it will be more accurate than non-free floated (in theory). Although the gas piston harmonics are likely to throw off accuracy a bit compared to direct impingement.

Gas piston design IS better than direct impingement on a properly designed system. Less stoppages, and more reliable without lube in long term engagements. Keeps the hot gas out of the action, which is a good thing.

This is a good choice for the Marines. I'm glad to see that they are using their brains for once, instead of being stuck in the military rut, like the Army is. They are also issuing the new Gen 3 Magpul PMAG window as their new combat magazine, which is way better than the Army's enhanced GI mag, which isn't enhanced at all. Its a turd. The new Army GI mag is less reliable than the old GI mag.

As to the $3000 cost of current M4's, that's a far stretch. Those guns are about $500 to the GOVT. Including accessories, spare parts, ammo AND training, the cost could be calculated at $3000 per, but that's odd math.
 
Here's an article with a lot of background information on the USMC & H&K M27: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/04/20/m27-impressions/

Basically, the Marines had been using the M27 in lieu of the SAW. The SAW is only useful in certain circumstances for suppressing fire, and not very accurate since it fires from an open bolt. The M27 is more accurate and lighter and thus much more generally useful than a SAW. So the USMC started giving machine gunners M27 with 21 30-rd magazines instead of a SAW with a belt.

Now someone decided that everyone ought to have one.
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Look for the Current M16s to get sold off first. If the President sees another 7 years we may be able to buy rifles with 3 shot bursts by then.


These rifles will all meet "Captain Crunch", unfortunately. They will pay more tax payer money to destroy the goods purchased with tax money.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: billt460
Here is the part I'm having trouble with:

"An M27 reportedly costs around $3,000. “The price for that rifle is comparable to what we paid for the M4s the riflemen currently have,” Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian P. Wade, 2nd Marine Division Gunner, told Military.com.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-heckler-koch-m27-the-marines-new-rifle-24019

If the military is actually paying $3K for a standard D.I. M-4 Carbine, no wonder they're in such bad shape financially.


I have actually seen it reported the base guns cost around 400 bucks. But when you deck them out with everything, they may be up there. ACOG and other sights get expensive. SO a decked out M4 may be about as much as a stripped down M27.

It is a ton of money for a marginally improved AR. If only it came in a more capable chambering like 6.5 Grendel.
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Look for the Current M16s to get sold off first. If the President sees another 7 years we may be able to buy rifles with 3 shot bursts by then.
Lets hope so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top